Education in Wyoming is a fundamental right, the highest form of protected right there is. The Court has addressed education funding before, and struck down a prior funding model.
Now, the 1st Judicial District is really giving the legislature the dope slap.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915) that movies were not speech, upholding Ohio's film censorship board. The Court stated:
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Syllabus
Where provisions for censorship of moving pictures relate only to films intended for exhibition within the state and they are distributed to persons within the state for exhibition, there is no burden imposed on interstate commerce.
The doctrine of original package does not extend to moving picture films transported, delivered, and used as shown in the record in this case, although manufactured in, and brought from, another state.
Moving picture films brought from another state to be rented or sold by the consignee to exhibitors are in consumption and mingled as much as from their nature they can be with other property of the state, and subject to its otherwise valid police regulation, even before the consignee delivers to the exhibitor.
The judicial sense, supporting the common sense of this country, sustains the exercise of the police power of regulation of moving picture exhibitions.
The exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit like other spectacles, and not to be regarded as part of the press of the country or as organs of public opinion within the meaning of freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by the Constitution of Ohio.
This Court will not anticipate the decision of the state court as to the application of a police statute of the state to a state of facts not involved in the record of the case before it. Quaere whether moving pictures exhibited in places other than places of amusement should fall within the provisions of the censorship statute of Ohio.
While administration and legislation are distinct powers and the line that separates their exercise is not easily defined, the legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal principles to control in given cases, and an administrative body may be clothed with power to ascertain facts and conditions to which such policy and principles apply.
It is impossible to exactly specify such application in every instance, and the general terms of censorship, while furnishing no exact standard
Page 236 U. S. 231
of requirements may get precision from the sense and experience of men and become certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct. Whether provisions in a state statute clothing a board or Congress composed of officers from that and other states with power amount to such delegation of legislative power as to render the provisions unconstitutional will not be determined by this Court in a case in which it appears that such Congress is still nonexistent.
The moving picture censorship act of Ohio of 1913 is not in violation of the federal Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Ohio either as depriving the owners of moving pictures of their property without due process of law or as a burden on interstate commerce, or as abridging freedom and liberty of speech and opinion, or as delegating legislative authority to administrative officers.
215 F. 138 affirmed.
Appeal from an order denying appellant, herein designated complainant, an interlocutory injunction sought to restrain the enforcement of an act of the General Assembly of Ohio passed April 16, 1913 (103 Ohio Laws 399), creating under the authority and superintendence of the Industrial Commission of the state a board of censors of motion picture films. The motion was presented to three judges, upon the bill, supporting affidavits, and some oral testimony.
The bill is quite voluminous. It makes the following attacks upon the Ohio statute: (1) the statute is in violation of §§ 5, 16 and 19 of Article 1 of the constitution of the state in that it deprives complainant of a remedy by due process of law by placing it in the power of the board of censors to determine from standards fixed by itself what films conform to the statute, and thereby deprives complainant of a judicial determination of a violation of the law; (2) the statute is in violation of Articles I and XIV of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and of § 11 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Ohio in that it restrains complainant and other persons from freely writing and publishing their sentiments; (3) it attempts to give the board of censors legislative power,
Page 236 U. S. 232
which is vested only in the general assembly of the state, subject to a referendum vote of the people, in that it gives to the board the power to determine the application of the statute without fixing any standard by which the board shall be guided in its determination, and places it in the power of the board, acting with similar boards in other states, to reject, upon any whim or caprice, any film which may be presented, and power to determine the legal status of the foreign board or boards, in conjunction with which it is empowered to act.
The business of the complainant and the description, use, object, and effect of motion pictures and other films contained in the bill, stated narratively, are as follows: complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing, selling, and leasing films, the films being produced in other states than Ohio, and in European and other foreign countries. The film consists of a series of instantaneous photographs or positive prints of action upon the stage or in the open. By being projected upon a screen with great rapidity, there appears to the eye an illusion of motion. They depict dramatizations of standard novels, exhibiting many subjects of scientific interest, the properties of matter, the growth of the various forms of animal and plant life, and explorations and travels; also events of historical and current interest -- the same events which are described in words and by photographs in newspapers, weekly periodicals, magazines, and other publications, of which photographs are promptly secured a few days after the events which they depict happen, thus regularly furnishing and publishing news through the medium of motion pictures under the name of "Mutual Weekly." Nothing is depicted of a harmful or immoral character.
The complainant is selling and has sold during the past year for exhibition in Ohio an average of fifty-six positive prints of films per week to film exchanges doing business in that state, the average value thereof being the sum of
Page 236 U. S. 233
$100, aggregating $6,000 per week, or $300,000 per annum.
In addition to selling films in Ohio, complainant has a film exchange in Detroit, Michigan, from which it rents or leases large quantities to exhibitors in the latter state and in Ohio. The business of that exchange and those in Ohio is to purchase films from complainant and other manufacturers of films and rent them to exhibitors for short periods at stated weekly rentals. The amount of rentals depends upon the number of reels rented, the frequency of the changes of subject, and the age or novelty of the reels rented. The frequency of exhibition is described. It is the custom of the business, observed by all manufacturers, that a subject shall be released or published in all theaters on the same day, which is known as release day, and the age or novelty of the film depends upon the proximity of the day of exhibition to such release day. Films so shown have never been shown in public, and the public to whom they appeal is therefore unlimited. Such public becomes more and more limited by each additional exhibition of the reel.
The amount of business in renting or leasing from the Detroit exchange for exhibition in Ohio aggregates the sum of $1,000 per week.
Complainant has on hand at its Detroit exchange at least 2,500 reels of films which it intends to and will exhibit in Ohio, and which it will be impossible to exhibit unless the same shall have been approved by the board of censors. Other exchanges have films, duplicate prints of a large part of complainant's films, for the purpose of selling and leasing to parties residing in Ohio, and the statute of the state will require their examination and the payment of a fee therefor. The amounts of complainant's purchases are stated, and that complainant will be compelled to bear the expense of having them censored because its customers will not purchase or hire uncensored films.
The business of selling and leasing films from its offices
Page 236 U. S. 234
outside of the State of Ohio to purchasers and exhibitors within the state is interstate commerce, which will be seriously burdened by the exaction of the fee for censorship, which is not properly an inspection tax, and the proceeds of which will be largely in excess of the cost of enforcing the statute, and will in no event be paid to the Treasury of the United States.
The board has demanded of complainant that it submit its films to censorship, and threatens, unless complainant complies with the demand, to arrest any and all persons who seek to place on exhibition any film not so censored or approved by the censor congress on and after November 4, 1913, the date to which the act was extended. It is physically impossible to comply with such demand and physically impossible for the board to censor the films with such rapidity as to enable complainant to proceed with its business, and the delay consequent upon such examination would cause great and irreparable injury to such business, and would involve a multiplicity of suits.
There were affidavits filed in support of the bill and some testimony taken orally. One of the affidavits showed the manner of shipping and distributing the films, and was as follows:
"The films are shipped by the manufacturers to the film exchanges enclosed in circular metal boxes, each of which metal boxes is in turn enclosed in a fiber or wooden container. The film is in most cases wrapped around a spool or core in a circle within the metal case. Sometimes the film is received by the film exchange wound on a reel, which consists of a cylindrical core with circular flanges to prevent the film from slipping off the core, and when so wound on the reel is also received in metal boxes, as above described. When the film is not received on a reel, it is, upon receipt, taken from the metal box, wound on a reel, and then replaced in the metal box. So wound and so enclosed in metal boxes, the films are shipped by the film
Page 236 U. S. 235
exchanges to their customers. The customers take the film as it is wound on the reel from the metal box, and exhibit the pictures in their projecting machines, which are so arranged as to permit of the unwinding of the film from the reel on which it is shipped. During exhibition, the reel of film is unwound from one reel and rewound in reverse order on a second reel. After exhibition, it must be again unwound from the second reel from its reverse position and replaced on the original reel in its proper position. After the exhibitions for the day are over, the film is replaced in the metal box and returned to the film exchange, and this process is followed from day to day during the life of the film."
"All shipments of films from manufacturers to film exchanges, from film exchanges to exhibitors, and from exhibitors back to film exchanges, are made in accordance with regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, one of which provides as follows:"
" Moving picture films must be placed in metal cases, packed in strong and tight wooden boxes of fiber pails."
Another of the affidavits divided the business as follows:
"The motion picture business is conducted in three branches -- that is to say, by manufacturers, distributors, and exhibitors, the distributors being known as film exchanges. . . . Film is manufactured and produced in lengths of about 1,000 feet, which are placed on reels, and the market price per reel of film of a thousand feet in length is at the rate of 10 cents per foot, or $100. Manufacturers do not sell their film direct to exhibitors, but sell to film exchanges, and the film exchanges do not resell the film to exhibitors, but rent it out to them."
After stating the popularity of motion pictures, and the demand of the public for new ones, and the great expense their purchase would be to exhibitors, the affidavit proceeds as follows:
"For that reason, film exchanges came into existence, and film exchanges such as the Mutual Film Corporation are like clearing houses or circulating libraries, in that they purchase the film and rent it out to different exhibitors. One reel of film being made today serves in many theaters from day to day until it is worn out. The film exchange, in renting out the films, supervises their circulation."
An affidavit was filed, made by the "general secretary of the national board of censorship of motion pictures, whose office is at No. 50 Madison Avenue, New York City." The "national board," it is averred, "is an organization maintained by voluntary contributions, whose object is to improve the moral quality of motion pictures." Attached to the affidavit was a list of subjects submitted to the board which are "classified according to the nature of said subjects into scenic, geographic, historical, classical, and educational and propagandistic."
Page 236 U. S. 239
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Complainant directs its argument to three propositions: (1) the statute in controversy imposes an unlawful burden on interstate commerce; (2) it violates the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by § 11, Article 1, of the Constitution of the State of Ohio; [Footnote 1] and (3) it attempts to delegate legislative power to censors and to other boards to determine whether the statute offends in the particulars designated.
It is necessary to consider only §§ 3, 4, and 5. Section 3 makes it the duty of the board to examine and censor motion picture films to be publicly exhibited and displayed
Page 236 U. S. 240
in the State of Ohio. The films are required to be exhibited to the board before they are delivered to the exhibitor for exhibition, for which a fee is charged.
Section 4.
"Only such films as are, in the judgment and discretion of the board of censors, of a moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved by such board."
The films are required to be stamped or designated in a proper manner.
Section 5. The board may work in conjunction with censor boards of other states as a censor congress, and the action of such congress in approving or rejecting films shall be considered as the action of the state board, and all films passed, approved, stamped, and numbered by such congress, when the fees therefor are paid, shall be considered approved by the board.
By § 7, a penalty is imposed for each exhibition of films without the approval of the board, and by § 8, any person dissatisfied with the order of the board is given the same rights and remedies for hearing and reviewing, amendment or vacation of the order "as is provided in the case of persons dissatisfied with the orders of the Industrial Commission."
The censorship therefore is only of films intended for exhibition in Ohio, and we can immediately put to one side the contention that it imposes a burden on interstate commerce. It is true that, according to the allegations of the bill, some of the films of complainant are shipped from Detroit, Michigan, but they are distributed to exhibitors, purchasers, renters, and lessors in Ohio, for exhibition in Ohio, and this determines the application of the statute. In other words, it is only films which are "to be publicly exhibited and displayed in the State of Ohio" which are required to be examined and censored. It would be straining the doctrine of original packages to say that the films retain that form and composition even when unrolling and exhibiting to audiences, or, being ready for
Page 236 U. S. 241
renting for the purpose of exhibition within the state, could not be disclosed to the state officers. If this be so, whatever the power of the state to prevent the exhibition of films not approved -- and, for the purpose of this contention, we must assume the power is otherwise plenary -- films brought from another state, and only because so brought, would be exempt from the power, and films made in the state would be subject to it. There must be some time when the films are subject to the law of the state, and necessarily when they are in the hands of the exchanges, ready to be rented to exhibitors, or have passed to the latter, they are in consumption, and mingled as much as from their nature they can be with other property of the state.
It is true that the statute requires them to be submitted to the board before they are delivered to the exhibitor, but we have seen that the films are shipped to "exchanges" and by them rented to exhibitors, and the "exchanges" are described as "nothing more or less than circulating libraries or clearing houses." And one film "serves in many theaters from day to day until it is worn out."
The next contention is that the statute violates the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution. In its discussion, counsel have gone into a very elaborate description of moving picture exhibitions and their many useful purposes as graphic expressions of opinion and sentiments, as exponents of policies, as teachers of science and history, as useful, interesting, amusing, educational, and moral. And a list of the "campaigns," as counsel call them, which may be carried on, is given. We may concede the praise. It is not questioned by the Ohio statute, and under its comprehensive description, "campaigns" of an infinite variety may be conducted. Films of a "moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved," are the words of the statute. No exhibition, therefore, or "campaign"
Page 236 U. S. 242
of complainant will be prevented if its pictures have those qualities. Therefore, however missionary of opinion films are or may become, however educational or entertaining, there is no impediment to their value or effect in the Ohio statute. But they may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted. Their power of amusement, and, it may be, education, the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose. Indeed, we may go beyond that possibility. They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. Besides, there are some things which should not have pictorial representation in public places and to all audiences. And not only the State of Ohio, but other states, have considered it to be in the interest of the public morals and welfare to supervise moving picture exhibitions. We would have to shut our eyes to the facts of the world to regard the precaution unreasonable or the legislation to effect it a mere wanton interference with personal liberty.
We do not understand that a possibility of an evil employment of films is denied, but a freedom from the censorship of the law and a precedent right of exhibition are asserted, subsequent responsibility only, it is contended, being incurred for abuse. In other words, as we have seen, the Constitution of Ohio is invoked, and an exhibition of films is assimilated to the freedom of speech, writing, and publication assured by that instrument, and for the abuse of which only is there responsibility, and, it is insisted, that as no law may be passed "to restrain the liberty of speech or of the press," no law may be passed to subject moving pictures to censorship before their exhibition.
Page 236 U. S. 243
We need not pause to dilate upon the freedom of opinion and its expression, and whether by speech, writing, or printing. They are too certain to need discussion -- of such conceded value as to need no supporting praise. Nor can there be any doubt of their breadth, nor that their underlying safeguard is, to use the words of another, "that opinion is free, and that conduct alone is amenable to the law."
Are moving pictures within the principle, as it is contended they are? They indeed may be mediums of thought, but so are many things. So is the theater, the circus, and all other shows and spectacles, and their performances may be thus brought by the like reasoning under the same immunity from repression or supervision as the public press -- made the same agencies of civil liberty.
Counsel have not shrunk from this extension of their contention, and cite a case in this Court where the title of drama was accorded to pantomime, [Footnote 2] and such and other spectacles are said by counsel to be publications of ideas, satisfying the definition of the dictionaries -- that is, and we quote counsel, a means of making or announcing publicly something that otherwise might have remained private or unknown -- and this being peculiarly the purpose and effect of moving pictures, they come directly, it is contended, under the protection of the Ohio constitution.
The first impulse of the mind is to reject the contention. We immediately feel that the argument is wrong or strained which extends the guaranties of free opinion and speech to the multitudinous shows which are advertised on the billboards of our cities and towns, and which regards them as emblems of public safety, to use the words of Lord Camden, quoted by counsel, and which seeks to
Page 236 U. S. 244
bring motion pictures and other spectacle into practical and legal similitude to a free press and liberty of opinion.
The judicial sense supporting the common sense of the country is against the contention. As pointed out by the district court, the police power is familiarly exercised in granting or withholding licenses for theatrical performances as a means of their regulation. The court cited the following cases: Marmet v. State, 45 Ohio St. 63, 72-73; Baker v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio St. 534; Commonwealth v. McGann, 213 Mass. 213, 215; People v. Steele, 231 Ill. 340, 344-345.
The exercise of the power upon moving picture exhibitions has been sustained. Greenberg v. Western Turf. Ass'n, 148 Cal. 126; Laurelle v. Bush, 17 Cal. App. 409; State v. Loden, 117 Md. 373; Block v. Chicago, 239 Ill. 251; Higgins v. Lacroix, 119 Minn. 145. See also State v. Morris, 1 Boyce (Del.) 330; People v. Gaynor, 137 N.Y.S. 196, 199; McKenzie v. McClellan, 116 N.Y.S. 645, 646.
It seems not to have occurred to anybody in the cited cases that freedom of opinion was repressed in the exertion of the power which was illustrated. The rights of property were only considered as involved. It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition. It was this capability and power, and it may be in experience of them, that induced the State of Ohio, in addition to prescribing penalties for immoral exhibitions, as it does in its Criminal
Page 236 U. S. 245
Code, to require censorship before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We cannot regard this as beyond the power of government.
It does not militate against the strength of these considerations that motion pictures may be used to amuse and instruct in other places than theaters -- in churches, for instance, and in Sunday schools and public schools. Nor are we called upon to say on this record whether such exceptions would be within the provisions of the statute, nor to anticipate that it will be so declared by the state courts, or so enforced by the state officers.
The next contention of complainant is that the Ohio statute is a delegation of legislative power, and void for that, if not for the other reasons charged against it which we have discussed. While administration and legislation are quite distinct powers, the line which separates exactly their exercise is not easy to define in words. It is best recognized in illustrations. Undoubtedly the legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal principles which are to control in given cases; but an administrative body may be invested with the power to ascertain the facts and conditions to which the policy and principles apply. If this could not be done, there would be infinite confusion in the laws, and, in an effort to detail and to particularize, they would miss sufficiency both in provision and execution.
The objection to the statute is that it furnishes no standard of what is educational, moral, amusing, or harmless, and hence leaves decision to arbitrary judgment, whim, and caprice; or, aside from those extremes, leaving it to the different views which might be entertained of the effect of the pictures, permitting the "personal equation" to enter, resulting "in unjust discrimination against some propagandist film," while others might be approved without question. But the statute by its provisions guards against such variant judgments, and its terms, like other
Page 236 U. S. 246
general terms, get precision from the sense and experience of men, and become certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct. The exact specification of the instances of their application would be as impossible as the attempt would be futile. Upon such sense and experience, therefore, the law properly relies. This has many analogies and direct examples in cases, and we may cite Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183; Red "C" Oil Manufacturing Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470. See also Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86. If this were not so, the many administrative agencies created by the state and national governments would be denuded of their utility, and government in some of its most important exercises become impossible.
To sustain the attack upon the statute as a delegation of legislative power, complainant cites Harmon v. State, 66 Ohio St. 249. In that case, a statute of the state committing to a certain officer the duty of issuing a license to one desiring to act as an engineer if "found trustworthy and competent" was declared invalid because, as the court said, no standard was furnished by the general assembly as to qualification, and no specification as to wherein the applicant should be truthworthy and competent, but all was "left to the opinion, finding, and caprice of the examiner." The case can be distinguished. Besides, later cases have recognized the difficulty of exact separation of the powers of government, and announced the principle that legislative power is completely exercised where the law "is perfect, final, and decisive in all of its parts, and the discretion given only relates to its execution." Cases are cited in illustration. And the principle finds further illustration in the decisions of the courts of lesser authority, but which exhibit the juridical sense of the state as to the delegation of powers.
Section 5 of the statute, which provides for a censor
Page 236 U. S. 247
congress of the censor board and the boards of other states, is referred to in emphasis of complainant's objection that the statute delegates legislative power. But, as complainant says, such congress is "at present nonexistent and nebulous;" and we are therefore not called upon to anticipate its action, or pass upon the validity of § 5.
We may close this topic with a quotation of the very apt comment of the district court upon the statute. After remarking that the language of the statute "might have been extended by description and illustrative words," but doubting that it would have been the more intelligible, and that probably by being more restrictive might be more easily thwarted, the court said:
"In view of the range of subjects which complainants claim to have already compassed, not to speak of the natural development that will ensue, it would be next to impossible to devise language that would be at once comprehensive and automatic."
In conclusion, we may observe that the Ohio statute gives a review by the courts of the state of the decision of the board of censors.
Decree affirmed.
[Footnote 1]
"Section 11. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right, and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted."
[Footnote 2]
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U. S. 55.
This ruling, rather obviously, is not the current state of the law at all.
Pornographic content was already becoming a problem.
A court of inquiry started on the causes of the Singapore Mutiny.
Joseph Davilmar Théodore was forced to resign as President of Haiti following a counter-revolution.
Last edition:
The Sheikh Said Rebellion by Kurdish nationalists broke out after a sermon by Sheikh Said at Dicle, urging Kurdish independence.
.jpg)
The Judiciary Act of 1925 was passed, seeking to reduce the workload of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Last edition:
Well of course, it's hard to tell.
November 11, 2024
And indeed, there are already those, who pollyannish like insist that maybe this time Trump will be different, and not carry through with all his claims, promises, and threats.
I listed to all three weekend shows this week, and they're well worth listening to. For the most part, with one exception, Democrats have realized that latching on to far left social issues sank them. Even Bernie Sanders seemed to agree. The exception really seemed clueless.
A scary former Trump ambassador to Japan seemed, now in Congress for Tennessee, seems intent on cutting off all aid to Ukraine.
Susie Wiles will be Trump's chief of staff.
On that, there are already noting how that's "historic" as she's the first woman to be appointed to that role. No it isn't. Frankly, once Barrack Obama was elected President most of the claimed "firsts" are really meaningless.
Trump has apparently instructed Republicans in Congress to hold up Biden judicial nominees.
cont:
And now we know the "Border Czar" will be Tom Homan, who in a recent interview with 60 Minutes, supported deporting kids who were born and raised in the US to undocumented immigrants, stating: “Families can be deported together.”
Homan had stated at a Nation Conservatism conference: "Trump comes back in January, I'll be on his heels coming back, and I will run the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen. They ain't seen shit yet. Wait until 2025."
How charming.
cont:
Elise Stefanik has been chosen to be Ambassador to the United Nations.
November 12, 2024
Former Green Beret, Florida Republican Rep. Mike Waltz, a China hawk, will be National Security Advisor.
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem will head the Department of Homeland Security
Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York will run the Environmental Protection Agency. He's expected to go after environmental regulations, and be hostile to climate policy.
Somebody, or some group, is clearly advising Trump on these picks. But who is it?
Marco Rubio will be Secretary of State, a position that he undoubtedly will be unable to retain throughout a second Trump administration.
Russian television, which is presumed not to run items without Putin's permission, ran nude photos of Melania Trump. This is interesting in that Trump has a weird relationship with Putin, and you have to wonder what the message was supposed to be.
Cont:
Tom Homan:
The illegal animals coming across the border... 31% of women that make their journey get raped by criminal cartels.
Children get raped. I've talked to little girls as young as nine that have been raped multiple times.
These cartels are animals. And that's why President Trump's gonna take 'em off the face of Earth.
[Trump] will use them full might of the United States Special Operations to take 'em out.
Trump in fact asked about doing something of this nature in his prior term.
Cont:
John Ratcliffe will serve as CIA director.
November 13, 2024
Fox news commentator Pete Hegseth, a National Guard officer, has been chosen by Trump as Secretary of Defense.
Seems like a poor choice. Maybe even a bit of a scary one.
Former Arkansas Governor and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee, a very strong supporter of Israel, perhaps even one that might be regarded as extreme on the point, has been chosen as Ambassador to the country.
This will not be good for peace in the Middle East. Arab Americans who abstained from voting will no reap the fruits of that action, and they'll be bitter fruits.
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been appointed to something that will be called the Department of Efficiency. I don't see this lasting.
These picks look a lot like what a lot of people expected, and feared.
Cont:
John Thune (R-S.D.) will be the next Senate Majority Leader.
Cont:
Secretary of Defense putative nominee has apparently stated "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles." Frankly, that's my view as well, and that view is widely shared within the military itself. This is interesting, however, as this would normally probably be a disqualifying viewpoint. We'll see if it had any impact on his chances of being confirmed.
We'll also see, of course, if he acts on his view. A large number of the views Trump expressed in his 2016 campaign of this type never saw the light of day in his administration.
I actually have a long and very old draft of a post on women in combat I've never completed. I ought to, but now I'm reluctant given that I don't want to be seen leaping on board the incoming administration's bandwagon.
Cont:
Trump has nominated Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General of the United States.
My prediction is that even the Republican Senate won't be able to stomach that.
What a joke.
November 14, 2024
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State.
Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Security.
John Barrasso, Senate Whip.
Gaetz, who was the topic of an upcoming ethics investigation, has resigned from Congress.
Cont:
When he (Gaetz) was accused of sleeping with an underage girl, there’s a reason why no one in the conference defended him. We all saw videos he was showing us on the House floor of girls he slept with & brag how he would crush ED medicine so he could go all night.
Sen. Mullin, R. Oklahoma.
Cont:
Republican Senator John Cornyn is going to ask the House Ethics Committee to release the findings of the Matt Gaetz investigation.
Cont:
And now RFK Jr. for Health and Human Services.
With this appointment and Gaetz, Heath May put it best. "Another day, another dumb ass"
November 15, 2024
Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior.
This is again an interesting choice. Only 3.9% of North Dakota is Federal land. However, users of Federal land in the West might take some cautious optimism out of this as Western politicians, completely contrary to the views of those they serve, have taken on the land grabbing mindset illustrated by Utah's effort to grab Federal lands in court, which has been sadly supported by Wyoming.
Cont:
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson regarding the House ethics investigation report for Gaetz:
I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report.
Cont:
Governor
Gordon Commends Selection of Governor Doug Burgum for Secretary of the
Interior
CHEYENNE,
Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon has issued a statement following the announcement
from President Trump that North Dakota governor
Doug Burgum will lead the Department of Interior.
“I congratulate my friend Doug Burgum and I
commend President Trump for his selection of Governor Burgum as Secretary of
the Interior. Since almost half of Wyoming’s surface land and 67% of its
mineral resources are managed by the federal government, the Secretary of the
Interior is integral to Wyoming’s economic well-being and future. It is good
that we have a friend in that office.
Doug has a deep understanding of the
importance of energy development while maintaining valuable wildlife and
outdoor recreation opportunities. He and I have worked together on these issues
for the past six years. We see eye-to-eye on the importance of a domestically
focused, all-of-the-above energy policy for public lands and minerals. I know
personally his love of the outdoors. I am confident that under his leadership,
future decisions regarding land management and wildlife issues in Wyoming will
not utilize a top-down, DC-driven approach, but rather be made cooperatively,
with local interests at the forefront. I look forward to working with him.”
-END-
November 16, 2024
Karoline Leavitt, age 27, as press secretary.
Cont:
Chris Wright, CEO of Denver-based Liberty Energy, secretary of the Department of Energy.
November 18, 2024
Mitch McConnell has stated there will be no recess appointments.
November 19, 2024
Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce.
Cont:
Mehmet Oz to serve as administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Truly, this is the most pathetic set of appointments, ever.
November 23, 2024
Dr. Janette Nesheiwat for Surgeon General.
Pam Bondi to replace Gaetz, who withdrew.
Scott Bessent for Treasury Secretary.
Republican Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon for Secretary of Labor.
Scott Turner, for the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
November 24, 2024
Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture. She's a Texas A&M trained lawyer with an undergraduate in agricultural development.
Dr. Marty Makary, Food and Drug Administration commissioner.
Rep. Dave Weldon, a Republican from Florida, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Russell Vought, a co-author of Project 2025, to lead the Office of Management and Budget.
December 2, 2024
Joe Biden pardoned Hunter Biden.
cont:
Trump proposes to replace the currently serving head of the FBI, whom he appointed in the first place with Kash Patel.
This is absurd.
December 9, 2024
Trump was interviewed on Meet The Press (I guess a longer transcript of the interview is elsewhere on NBC).
While presented with a very flat aspect, Trump interestingly basically stuck with his promises, putting in some plausible deniability between himself and carrying them out. In other words, if his political enemies are prosecuted, that's the decision of other people, he'd have it, not him. He also left room for failure if things don't go as he promised.
He didn't back down from mass deportations, and in fact double downed on them, save for the "Dreamers", for whom he expressed a desire to find a solution. It's pretty clear that support for Ukraine is going to be decreased.
December 10, 2024
Sen. Lummis will be on the "DOGE Caucus".
December 11, 2024
Sigh . . .
Kimberly Guilfoyle Is Appointed Ambassador to Greece.
cont:
FBI Director Christopher Wray is going to resign at the end of the current administration.
Kerri Lake as head of Voice of America.
December 13, 2024
Mitch McConnell about indications that there may be Trump Admin vaccine dipshittery, on the polio vaccine:
Like millions of families before them, my parents knew the pain and fear of watching their child struggle with the life-altering diagnosis of polio. From the age of two, normal life without paralysis was only possible for me because of the miraculous combination of modern medicine and a mother’s love. But for millions who came after me, the real miracle was the saving power of the polio vaccine…
The polio vaccine has saved millions of lives and held out the promise of eradicating a terrible disease. Efforts to undermine public confidence in proven cures are not just uninformed — they’re dangerous. Anyone seeking the Senate’s consent to serve in the incoming Administration would do well to steer clear of even the appearance of association with such efforts.
Frankly, messing with childhood police vaccines is criminal at an epic level.
December 21, 2024
Congressman Hageman will chair the Article One Task Force which has as its mission going after regulatory agencies in favor of Congress, based on the conservative concept that regulatory agencies have usurped Congress.
December 24, 2024
Wyoming Senator Lummis is joining the newly formed U.S. Senate caucus led by Kansas Republican Dr. Roger Marshall that will work to promote legislation in line with the agenda of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who is widely regarded as a gadfly.
Last edition:
March 15, 2024
March 19, 2024
Trump, who represents that his assets are vast, is not able to post a bond covering the full amount of a $454 million civil fraud judgment against him during appeal and has related the same in a filing in court. He's seeking not to have to post bond.
If the Court does not grant him relief, execution on the judgment could start immediately.
Cont:
Donald Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos over comments made in the last This Week episode in the Nancy Mace interview.
April 25, 2024
As Trump sits in a New York courtroom on charges of election interference for paying porn figures not to reveal his dalliances with them, while a married man, a host of figures were indicted in Arizona for an attempt to seat false electors.
May 1, 2024
Trump was fined for violating a court "gag" order in a contempt of court ruling in his hush money trial. He was further warned that he may be jailed in a future contempt ruling, should this conduct repeat.
The same court is allowing him to appear at his son Barron's high school graduation, which apparently would be the first time that he would attend one of his children's high school graduations.
Elise Stefanik filed an ethics complaint against Trump prosecutor Jack Smith, in a move that itself lacks moral ethics. Stefanik should be ashamed, but the concept of shame is sadly lacking currently.
May 30, 2024
Trump was convicted on all 34 Counts in the New York election interference case.
The claims that it was a political prosecution and featured a rigged jury will start any second now.
June 6, 2024
The Georgia election interference case, which is one of the more significant ones, has been stayed while an appeal goes forward on whether prosecutor Willis may remain on the case, and so human foibles will end up causing this case not to be heard prior to the election, probably.
Willis should step aside to let t his matter go forward.
July 15, 2024
To the general amazement of the legal community, the classified documents case has been dismissed on the basis of the Special Prosecutor having been appointed in violation of the appointments act. The Special Prosecutor is going to appeal, but there's no way an appeal will be heard prior to the election.
This is frankly bizarre.
August 3, 2024
The criminal case against Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election shall resume. It's been stayed for 8 months pending the outcome of the Supreme Court opinion on immunity, which the Judge will now have to figure out how to apply.
August 28, 2024
A new amended indictment has been filed.
September 7, 2024
Not related to the insurrection, but to Trump's legal problems, his sentencing in the hush money case has been delayed until after the election.
Frankly, this makes no sense.
November 25, 2024
Special Counsel Jack Smith has requested that all charges against President-elect Trump be dropped in the Federal case.
The progress of official justice in this mater was horrifically slow, which in part is why we now have somebody as President Elect who should have stood trial well over a year ago.
And hence, as Justice shall not come, and the guilty shall go free, we conclude this trailing thread.
Last prior edition:
Hundreds of residents of Massachusetts and Connecticut occupied the Great Barrington courthouse to prevent British appointed judges from sitting in the first organized resistance to British judicial rule in Colonial North America.
Last edition:
Joe Biden, in an op ed in the Washington Post (a poor way to make major proposals, in my view) proposed some major structural changes to the framework of U.S. governance today. The proposals are:
1. A Constitutional Amendment making it clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.
2. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices such that a President would appoint a justice every two years for a term of 18 years on the Court.
3. A binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court.
On these, fwiw, I think a Constitutional Amendment would be justified, but I'd go further than what's stated. I don't support any kind of immunity at all.
On term limits, I don't support that either, but would support age limits. Once a Federal Judge reached age 60, or at least no older than 65, they'd be required to retire, including members of the Supreme Court.
On a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, it's a good idea, but I don't know how you impose one, given the independence of the judiciary.
We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
But of course not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority.
Trump v. United States, which was just issued.
The entire time I've been a lawyer. . . well, no, well before that, I've been told that one of the "greatest" things about "the world's greatest judicial system" is that it uses juries.
Most legal systems do not, and those that do, have tended to pick it up from the English Common Law system, often through American influence. Save for Louisiana, we use the English system, and the English system has long used juries.
The system has evolved over time. Originally it was an effort to gather those from the area where an event occured, and was truly a jury of peers. The danger was that they actually knew you, and therefore may be inclined to judge your guilt or innocence based on that, which was part of why it was conceived of as a good system. Over time, while it was still supposed to be a jury of your peers, they were picked, through the voir dire process, for their fairness.
I'm not about to say that juries always get everything right. They don't. But lawyers are taught to respect the process and the juries, and for good reason. Frankly, more often than not, juries are right. Not always, but holding them in contempt is wrong.
The jury that found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felonies this past week in Manhattan was made up seven men and five women, and included two attorneys, a software engineer, an e-commerce sales professional, a security engineer, a teacher, a speech therapist, an investment banker and a retired wealth manager. That is a highly educated jury, and frankly that probably truly is a jury of Trump's peers. Leaving two lawyers on the jury is bizarre, as lawyers only rarely make a jury panel, although I've known one who did. I've been called for jury duty once and did not get picked, as I didn't expect to be. Having two lawyers on the panel is phenomenal.
It'd be interesting to know how that occured. Trump's defense team may have thought that the lawyers would regard the charges as strained in regard to election interference, which a lot of legal analysts did. They may have, instead, helped the jury wade through the piles of stuff they had and arrive at the conclusion which they did.
Anyway you look at it, they arrived at the opinion they arrived at, and that needs to be respected.
Which Wyoming's elected officials are not.
The jury has been slammed by all of our Congressional delegation, two of whom are lawyers, the Governor and the Secretary of State.
It's tragic.
Wyoming makes frequent recourse to the courts as a state, and now it's attacking the judicial system. There's utterly nothing whatsoever to question the nature of this jury on. It appears to have been well qualified for its role. There's no reason to suspect that New York's legal system is deficient in any way.
It's inexcusable to attack the jury.
April 10, 2024
Donald Trump released a four-minute video attempting to thread the needle on abortion, and largely failed.
Abortion is proving to be an odd issue in this election. Following 1973's Roe v. Wade decision, the Democratic Party became increasingly pro death, with left the GOP as the pro-life default party. It was generally pro-life, as a conservative party, but it was more vague about it for many years than a person might suppose. This paid off for pro-life forces when the decision, which even informed left wing legal thinkers felt impossible to really defend, fell due to a Mitch McConnell influenced Supreme Court, appointed by Donald Trump. That was a long wished for conservative result, which Trump claimed credit for, not without some justification, but largely due to Trump giving McConnell free rein on Supreme Court appointments.
This has ended up being a hot election issue ever since, but it's still very poorly understood as to its impact. Various conservative states have enacted laws restricting or banning abortion (some old laws have just come back into operation) and it's ended up a ballot issue elsewhere. Democrats believe that the issue works in their favor, although how that squares with elected legislatures restricting it isn't very clear. Added to that, right wing Republicans began to push for a Federal nationwise restriction on abortion, which is something they haven't really fleshed out, thinking wise. A Federal law, while universal, seems to suggest a compromise on the topic, which is a topic that can't really be compromised on, at least on the pro-life side. That is, unless its just a nationwide ban, which seems to have little chance of passing. The various proposals make just about 0 intellectual sense whatsoever. A person either believes that all life has value, in which case it does from the first instance, or they believe it really doesn't, and should only be protected at an arbitrary point at which its too icky to admit to killing.
Enter the candidates on the issue. . .
Joe Biden, who is a Catholic and morally obligated to believe that all life is sacred, instead has opted for an apparent state of personal mortal sin and is for allowing the killing, with his campaign featuring that position, and he is still being allowed to receive Communion for some reason that's hard to grasp. Donald Trump, who has a predatory relationship with women to at least some degree, and who has been pretty keen on bedding women of a certain type, kept his views secret until earlier this week when, in a four-minute video, he came out for no Federal law at all.
No Federal law is the position of some conservative, but politically savvy, Republicans who aren't Trumpers. It is, for example, Chris Christie's position's was that the states should decide the issue for their states. But the concept of a nationwise ban has received increasing support in conservative camps due to some states enacting broad permissive abortion laws. It should be noted, others have enacted restrictive ones, like Wyoming (whose law is gummed up in court due to an incredibly dim witted paranoid law that enshrines personal medical choices as its supporters were rampaging paranoid about imaginary Obamacare "death panels".
This raises a lot of interesting questions, one being what does Trump actually think? Frankly, Trump doesn't appear to be a deep thinker on anything, but on this issue it's known that he's run the gambit in views, originally being in the pro death camp. His coming out the way he did appears to be in hopes of avoiding the issue, stating that it's a state rights issue. After giving his four-minute flat affect speech, he came out again today on the Arizona Supreme Court finding a territorial era statute banning abortion was constitutional and revised, which makes perfect sense legally. Noting that it was his appointees that brought the reversal of Roe finally around, he stated that the Arizona action, which again makes perfect legal sense, "went too far", which makes no legal sense but which reflects the view that most people have on courts which is that they're a policy legislature, which they aren't.
Life or death being a state's rights issue is lame in more ways than one. A person could argue it on a practical basis, that being that leaving it up to states is the only way for any peace on the issue at all, which is more or less Christie's position. Trump's view came out like a rambling mish mash of a confused intellect, which is a bit surprising as somebody must have written his statement for him.
Indeed, the fact that he read it brings up the issue of his mental status. Statements that he reads tend to come out with a very flat affect, which has yet to be explained. People continue to ignore the question of what's going on, organically, in his head.
All this has left some interesting fallout. Serious pro lifers are left wondering about who to support, with some having supported Trump in the past solely because of this issue. "He's better than Biden" seems to be the common reaction. But some are really upset. By the same token, Biden's designation of Easter as Transgender Visibility Day disgusted some who are fellow travelers on this issue. Pro lifers have been major supporters of the GOP since 1973, and now they have reason to question the party's loyalty to them.
And it all shows how compromised the values of politicians are in general.
April 12, 2024
The Trump campaign, which avoided debates in the primaries, wants more debates in the general election and wants them to start soon.
Trump is likely worried that a lot of his speaking coming up will be in the form of testimony, and wants to distract from that. Also, Trump no doubt feels he's a better speaker than Biden.
In actuality, neither of them are good speakers. Biden has had a lifelong stuttering problem which makes his speech a bit odd, and Trump's speech suggests that he's in the early to early-mid stage of the onset of dementia. Absent a spectacular performance, or spectacular failure, by either candidate, debates probably aren't going to matter much, but contrary to common belief, Trump, who really goes off the rail if he departs from the teleprompter, is more likely to say something extraordinarily off the mark, weird, or incoherent.*
Cont:
Governor Gordon rightly rejected Secretary of State Gray's new voting rules.
April 13, 2024
Secretary of State Gray has an op ed in today's Trib entitled "Only Wyomingites Must Vote In Wyoming's Election".
It's a crime not to be a resident and vote in Wyoming's election, so this is a bit silly, but it's part of the Gray effort to whip up a frenzy in the populist right in part of his aim to run for Governor in 2026. It's also more than a little ironic, as Gray is not a Wyomingite, and most of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus isn't either. Jeanette Ward barely qualified to run for office when she ran for the seat Gray abandoned, as he tried first for the House and then for the SoS office.
Of course, "only Wyomingites" isn't what Gray means.
As always, Gray cited "radical left wing" activists as being his opponents.
Wyoming Democrats will caucus for the President today, not that it's going to matter. They'll choose Biden, and Biden will lose in Wyoming.
A Park County representative still wants all ballot counting in the county to be done by hand, but is being ignored as its a phenomenally bad idea.
Republican Dale Zwonitzer, a major House member from Cheyenne, is facing a run from Steve Johnson, Populist. Zwonitzer has faced open hostility from the Populist right the last several years.
Colorado will have an abortion ballot initiative in the fall.
April 15, 2024
While hardly newsworthy, Joe Biden won the Wyoming Caucus Saturday.
April 16, 2024
Donald Trump's criminal trial regarded to the paying of hush money to three people, two of them pornographic personages, began yesterday in New York.
The favorite of the Evangelical right is accused of paying Stormy Daniels, a pornographic actress, and another person, a former Playboy playmate, hush money prior to the 2016 election so they'd keep their mouths shut abut his fucking them. The third person is a doorman. The crime is asserted to be election interference, I guess, which is frankly a little hard to grasp in this context.
A jury has not yet been selected.
April 18, 2024
Senator Barrasso announced yesterday that he's running for reelection to the Senate.
I frankly thought he'd already announced, as he was obviously running for reelection. He has an opponent in the primary, Reid Rasner, who is running from the populist right.
I've mentioned the primary contest before, but I dismissed Rasner's campaign. Frankly, I was in error to do so as at this point I think Rasner has a serious chance of beating Barrasso, and Barrasso obviously fears that as well. Barrasso has been putting out hardcore populist, Trumpite, messages now for weeks. I strongly suspect that he doesn't believe in what he's tweeting, but he's taking this position, like almost every Republican political figure, in order to hang on to their jobs, even though it's killed the GOP.
Therefore, at the primary election, Wyoming will be presented with a contesnt between a genuine populist and a fake one. Actual conservatives will vote for Barrasso, not for what he's saying, but what they suspect he actually believes. Some populists will as well.
April 19, 2020
The GOP state convention defeated a bylaw proposal that would have provided a mechanism, probably ineffectively and illegally given the way party affiliation actually works, to kick actual Republicans out of the party.
One populists commented:
There was a group of citizens in Weston County very, very concerned about Liz Cheney and the way she tried to infiltrate and change our party,
Eh?
It's the populists who infilatrated the GOP, not the other way around. Cheney is a real Republican. Her opponents are largley Dixiecrats, but don't know it.
Natrona County voters will have a ballot item on the fall to create a Senior Service District consisting of the entire county. This will add 2 mills to people's taxes to fund senior services.
It's hugely unpopular to say so, but in an era in which Wyomingites are unhappy about all the growth they encouraged causing property values to rise (d'uh!) this will pass anyhow, and shouldn't. The current generation of seniors has had the best breaks of any generation in history, continues to basically control the country, and is fairly wealthy overall, even if individual members of the generation are not. A 2 mill tax effectively takes cash out of everyone's pockets to fulfill a need that people should have filled on their own, or that their families should.
Footnotes:
*Something you'll sometimes hear from Trump supporters is that "he talks like us". I fear that might be true, which is we're beginning to sound mildly demented and addled as a society.
Last prior edition:
